Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pnomanikon" data-source="post: 736547" data-attributes="member: 43342">Yes.&nbsp; And the differences are even more staggering when you consider before 1972, they measured &quot;Gross HP&quot;, which is on a stand without any accessories (alternator, water pump, etc) to get the maximum bragging rights.&nbsp; In 1972, they had to switch to &quot;Net HP&quot; which is measured at the flywheel and with all accessories (including A/C).&nbsp; That, plus the coincidental switch to lower compression ratios led to muscle car HP ratings dropping from the mid 300s to the low 200s.&nbsp; Even the 454 in the 1972 Corvette was rated at only 270HP Net.&nbsp; So, that 305 Net HP in @<a href="https://nikonites.com/member-24569-woodyg3.html" target="_blank">Woodyg3</a> 's Mustang is probably more like the 360-380 Gross HP you would find in the 1968-1971 big blocks.&nbsp; All that's missing is the torque to pull your horse trailer or private yacht.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pnomanikon, post: 736547, member: 43342"] Yes. And the differences are even more staggering when you consider before 1972, they measured "Gross HP", which is on a stand without any accessories (alternator, water pump, etc) to get the maximum bragging rights. In 1972, they had to switch to "Net HP" which is measured at the flywheel and with all accessories (including A/C). That, plus the coincidental switch to lower compression ratios led to muscle car HP ratings dropping from the mid 300s to the low 200s. Even the 454 in the 1972 Corvette was rated at only 270HP Net. So, that 305 Net HP in @[URL="https://nikonites.com/member-24569-woodyg3.html"]Woodyg3[/URL] 's Mustang is probably more like the 360-380 Gross HP you would find in the 1968-1971 big blocks. All that's missing is the torque to pull your horse trailer or private yacht. [/QUOTE]

Verification